John, I agree with you that we need both pieces of information, but how
can this be part of our data if it isn't included in the cataloging
rules? This is what concerns me: that there seems to be an assumption
that data will be available that isn't being accounted for in RDA. As
you say: "Apart from RDA..." Where will this data come from if not from
the cataloging process? And why should our cataloging rules ignore data
that we know we need? What is this magical "Apart from RDA..." and who
will create it?
kc
John Attig wrote:
At 09:27 AM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
Adam L. Schiff wrote:
At present, the instruction in RDA is to take and record what you see.
In other words, true transcription of what you find, with no
abbreviation. However, if abbreviations are on the resource, then you
will record them the way they appear. If the higher jurisdiction of
the place is not present, it does not get recorded in the place
element. Instead it will be given in a note.
Which, of course, makes it useless for any machine processing, such as
re-organizing a retrieved set by place of publication or providing a way
for a user to Find (FRBR user task) items published in a particular
location. It seems that when it comes to Find, the rules have a
pre-conceived notion of what users can ask for.
And in case you think that this isn't a legitimate search, I had reason
to do exactly this search the other day, and was not successful.
The way to support this functionality, which I agree should not be
dismissed out of hand, is not to change the conventions for recording
the place of publication -- whose function is primarily one of
identification, based on what appears on the item -- but rather to
define a relationship between the resource and the place in which it
is published, using the Place entity to provide a consistent form for
access, as well as variants.
Apart from RDA, I would note that many special collections libraries
currently use MARC field 752 to provide structured, controlled access
to place names as a means of creating an "imprint" file for their
holdings. The point is the same: we need a controlled access point,
not a descriptive data element, in order to provide consistent access
to place of publication.
John Attig
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
